Downwardly mobile....

Being poor or rich (monetarily speaking) is a choice. I can give you many examples of poor kids that grew up with narely the clothes on their back, or food in their stomachs, who have went on to become multi-millionaires. I can also give you many examples of the reverse.

Life is a choice... you make it what you want. ;)

On a good note. Many of those that were foreclosed on during the housing crisis, are now getting new loans and are buying new homes.
 
Last edited:
It's all about taking opportunities...other than that I'm gonna refrain from comment to prevent making enemies on here. :)
 
Being poor or rich (monetarily speaking) is a choice. I can give you many examples of poor kids that grew up with narely the clothes on their back, or food in their stomachs, who have went on to become multi-millionaires. I can also give you many examples of the reverse.

Life is a choice... you make it what you want. ;)

On a good note. Many of those that were foreclosed on during the housing crisis, are now getting new loans and are buying new homes.

Disagree: In 1979 the wife and I bought a modest house. We didn't anticipate the economic downturn that ensued. Lost our shirts in the process. Could have we been smarter? No doubt. Circumstances sometimes just come together to outweigh judgement. Foresight is valuable, yes few have the power to see that.
 
What doesn't help is the broad strokes that tend to get made in painting the picture portrayed in a 60 minute infotainment segment. I personally know of several people with good jobs who just walked away from houses because they owed more than the house was worth after the '08 crash. I can only imagine what happened to those truly at the bottom-end of all those "sub-prime" mortgages.
 
Being poor or rich (monetarily speaking) is a choice. I can give you many examples of poor kids that grew up with narely the clothes on their back, or food in their stomachs, who have went on to become multi-millionaires. I can also give you many examples of the reverse.

Life is a choice... you make it what you want. ;)

On a good note. Many of those that were foreclosed on during the housing crisis, are now getting new loans and are buying new homes.
And most of the others are still in financial trouble. With poor credit due to being foreclosed on, it's almost impossible to get a loan. The world is not a Horatio Alger story. The number of people who succeed using your examples is very small. In fact, I'll take bets that your examples are statistically tiny. There are always examples for theory.
 
What doesn't help is the broad strokes that tend to get made in painting the picture portrayed in a 60 minute infotainment segment. I personally know of several people with good jobs who just walked away from houses because they owed more than the house was worth after the '08 crash. I can only imagine what happened to those truly at the bottom-end of all those "sub-prime" mortgages.

They walked away, too.

Then we all paid to make AIG whole to save the world economy, or so the bankers say...

Not seeing your point.
 
With poor credit due to being foreclosed on, it's almost impossible to get a loan.
There are many lenders out there who are making loans for those that had past forclosures. It's used to be 7 yrs. before they'd even consider looking at you for a loan. In some cases it's now down to 3 yrs. with most cases being 5.
 
They walked away, too.

Then we all paid to make AIG whole to save the world economy, or so the bankers say...

Not seeing your point.

AIG was made whole to save Goldman. THAT was the point Hank was making. ;)
Just in case that might be unclear to anyone Ben @ The Fed granted Goldman bank status.
And then Hank threw a TARP over the whole gruesome train wreck.
 
AIG was made whole to save Goldman. THAT was the point Hank was making. ;)
Just in case that might be unclear to anyone Ben @ The Fed granted Goldman bank status.
And then Hank threw a TARP over the whole gruesome train wreck.

Fine, a change of the spin, but it works. Whatever.

When the debt machine stutters, forcible theft is usually used to pretend to fix it.

Funny money and more debt for all! Hear, hear! Wheeee!
 
Fine, a change of the spin, but it works. Whatever.

When the debt machine stutters, forcible theft is usually used to pretend to fix it.

Funny money and more debt for all! Hear, hear! Wheeee!

The debt machine stutters when leveraged asset values fall. Housing was/is the most dangerous class of asset to promote, but that is what The Maestro at the Fed did, after his stint on The Committee to Save the World (the first time, re: LTCM) and the Y2K liquidity party. And his successor, The Professor, denied housing could fall in value right to Wile C moment off the cliff edge. Nobody learned anything...if you think Florida, Phoenix and Vegas were silly, check out what's going on with house prices in Toronto and Vancouver today. This will not end well.

If only we could make our 40+ year old airplanes the objects of such desire. :D
 
If only we could make our 40+ year old airplanes the objects of such desire. :D

I wouldn't want the debt addicted crowd wanting my airplane. They'd drive the prices so high that I'd want to sell it and take up some other hobby with the proceeds.

There's an interesting thread topic possibility. How much money in a lump sum would it take to make you stop flying?

For me it'd be big. Really really big. And even then, maybe not.
 
The debt machine stutters when leveraged asset values fall.
Actually it's the derivatives backing those assets that failed, thus bringing the entire house of cards down. To many big players taking bets they had no business taking. When those bets could no longer be covered, down she comes and in comes the fed. ;)
 
Actually it's the derivatives backing those assets that failed, thus bringing the entire house of cards down. To many big players taking bets they had no business taking. When those bets could no longer be covered, down she comes and in comes the fed. ;)

Which specific type of derivative started that crisis, pray tell? :)

(Now I'm started to sound like Tom. Horrors! :eek: )
 
There are a lot of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. The amount of intellegence you were born with is a big factor.
 
Which specific type of derivative started that crisis, pray tell? :)
The ones that were leveraged about 1000 times over. There's data on all the derivative packages that were sold and failed amongst the big/small players. They gave them names like E-222CB or some crazy crap. You can dig down and each package actually contains the individual loans made and the "faux" values that were placed on those assets. Basically you had a bunch people wrapping s**t up, putting pretty bows on it, and then selling it to the investor masses. Then those masses would sell/option them out to other investors. Thus the vicious circle.

Were you in that game?
 
There are a lot of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. The amount of intellegence you were born with is a big factor.

So is being born in the right family. ;)

Not to detract from intelligence, hard work, ambition and perseverance, but people downplay or don't want to accept the very significant role that fate, serendipity, fortune, luck, whatever you want to call it plays in these outcomes.
 
Ive never understood the American obsession with 'house poverty'. It's so lifestyle-constricting to me. Spending third or more of my labor value on simpleton housing? To what end? So much flying, eating, living , traveling that can be done with that kind of money differential. Judging by those who surround me, my only theory is that it's a gynocentric imposition in order to secure their company. I'm not swayed by such extortion.

Sure, there's others for whom the tinkering of weekend house honey do brings some non economic value. I can't relate to that in the least, but I'm willing to acknowledge it as a legitimate hobby. Beyond that, I'm stumped. I just don't get the appeal of any of it. Can't take it with you in death and you never own it anyways as far as life under government is concerned, so why the overinvestment. I rather be fanatical and gratuitous about things that actually self actualize me, like my passion for flying for instance.
 
The ones that were leveraged about 1000 times over. There's data on all the derivative packages that were sold and failed amongst the big/small players. They gave them names like E-222CB or some crazy crap. You can dig down and each package actually contains the individual loans made and the "faux" values that were placed on the assets. Basically you had a bunch people wrapping s**t up, putting pretty bows on it, and then selling it to the investor masses. Then those masses would sell/option them out to other investors. Thus the vicious circle.

Were you in that game?

No I was on the other side of that trade. But as an outside observer using my own money, not someone in the financial industry. That's one reason I "retired" in 2008.

The answer you seek lies in the specific type of securities within pooled funds at Bear and BNP Paribas, circa June through August of 2007, that caused the Bear hedge funds to liquidate with large losses and BNP to "temporarily" freeze withdrawals in two of its funds as they could not price these assets. Then came the run on Northern Rock in the U.K. In September. This was a full year before Lehman went under, but these were marker precursors to the disaster about to hit for anyone who was watching.
 
There are a lot of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. The amount of intellegence you were born with is a big factor.
Maybe, but there are plenty of rich idiots and poor geniuses.
 
The answer you seek lies in the specific type of securities within pooled funds at Bear and BNP Paribas, circa June through August of 2007, that caused the Bear hedge funds to liquidate with large losses and BNP to "temporarily" freeze withdrawals in two of its funds as they could not price these assets. Then came the run on Northern Rock in the U.K. In September. This was a full year before Lehman went under, but these were marker precursors to the disaster about to hit for anyone who was watching.
The dominos were starting to fall way before 2007. I saw it starting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the crap they were peddling. Moody's, S&P, and Fitch were giving AAA ratings to C paper junk and the monkeys were buying it. Once some the bets starting getting called, then the dominos started falling.
 
Which specific type of derivative started that crisis, pray tell? :)

(Now I'm started to sound like Tom. Horrors! :eek: )

Tranches of the bad loans called CDOs, or Collateral Debt Options. The guy who created them got an industry award for doing so, a few years before they imploded.

I kinda think of him like the Bud Light "World Crashing Fake Fiscal Product Man".
 
Ive never understood the American obsession with 'house poverty'. It's so lifestyle-constricting to me. Spending third or more of my labor value on simpleton housing? To what end? So much flying, eating, living , traveling that can be done with that kind of money differential. Judging by those who surround me, my only theory is that it's a gynocentric imposition in order to secure their company. I'm not swayed by such extortion.

Hear hear. We bought well below our means, and thus were able to do and experience things other similar families could not. But, they have good curb presence.
 
My wife and I were house shopping in 1999. We ended up having a house built in a new development. At the time, the builder was offering to finance 100%. I told my wife "That's nuts. This won't end well." I wasn't plugged in to the securities market where they were bundling a reselling the mortgages but I didn't need to be to see it wasn't going to work.
 
I wouldn't want the debt addicted crowd wanting my airplane. They'd drive the prices so high that I'd want to sell it and take up some other hobby with the proceeds.

There's an interesting thread topic possibility. How much money in a lump sum would it take to make you stop flying?

For me it'd be big. Really really big. And even then, maybe not.
Make me an offer...you'd be surprised.
 
I still remember my little sister (there were 8 of us) asking my Dad if we were poor. My Dad said "No, we are broke, poor is a state of mind." He also said the only good investment is education. All of us got our degrees and are successful. We must be, two of us bought airplanes.
 
Ive never understood the American obsession with 'house poverty'. It's so lifestyle-constricting to me. Spending third or more of my labor value on simpleton housing? To what end? So much flying, eating, living , traveling that can be done with that kind of money differential. .

I've read several of the Jack Reacher series of books and Jack goes through the pros and cons of ownership in many of the books. In fact in one he explains that he can go into a thrift store and buy good clothes and wear them for three or four days and throw them away when he buys his next set. The only luggage he has is his toothbrush. And by the way, in the book he's about twice the size of Tom Cruise.
 
Mortgage backed securities combined with improper ratings from Moody's etc. Add the mandate from government to lend to unqualified borrowers, and you get the perfect storm, and that is all I will say.
 
I wouldn't want the debt addicted crowd wanting my airplane. They'd drive the prices so high that I'd want to sell it and take up some other hobby with the proceeds.

There's an interesting thread topic possibility. How much money in a lump sum would it take to make you stop flying?

For me it'd be big. Really really big. And even then, maybe not.
Negative cash flow made me stop teaching and flying last summer. Have not been able to go back.

David
 
I've read several of the Jack Reacher series of books and Jack goes through the pros and cons of ownership in many of the books. In fact in one he explains that he can go into a thrift store and buy good clothes and wear them for three or four days and throw them away when he buys his next set. The only luggage he has is his toothbrush. And by the way, in the book he's about twice the size of Tom Cruise.

Yeah, I read one of those books. The whole Reacher lifestyle is so unbelievable that it ruined it for me. At least give the guy an old van to live in - "down by the river" ! Then it might be a little more digestible.
 
Which specific type of derivative started that crisis, pray tell? :)

(Now I'm started to sound like Tom. Horrors! :eek: )

Credit default swaps. Those which Buffett called "Financial weapons of mass destruction."

CDO's were in large part collateral for default swaps. When those started to tank, AIG, Citi and other global swap underwriters had to come up with big payments for the counterparties, Trillions of dollars of swaps were underwritten. The more the collateral value declined, the more credit risk increased, the greater the risk of default, the more $ the underwriters had to come up with.

That's why the Fed had to act.
 
Last edited:
I watched the clip in the OP, and it's about mobile home park owners suckering tenants into buying the unit, then raising the rent on the land. At least that's what I got out of it.
 
For those unfamiliar, a credit default swap is a bet between you and I that a third party will credit default. Since you and I don't really know or trust each other, a trusted third party guarantees payment in return for premiums. If risk of default goes up, the third party increases reserves to guarantee payment. And these are big bets, IIRC the minimum was $5 million.

Citi and AIG and others were writing these things like drunken sailors because they thought underwriting swaps was free money, covering bets on huge companies that couldn't possibly default.
 
I personally know of several people with good jobs who just walked away from houses because they owed more than the house was worth after the '08 crash.
This is something that gets little attention. The focus tends to always be on "the innocent person who got suckered into a loan they couldn't afford and the bank took their home" <- while that may have started the trend many people just didn't feel like being upside down on their mortgages and it was fashionable at the time to "hate the big banks" <- quotes are not for sarcasm, just that they're the word choices often used by people

So is being born in the right family. ;)

Not to detract from intelligence, hard work, ambition and perseverance, but people downplay or don't want to accept the very significant role that fate, serendipity, fortune, luck, whatever you want to call it plays in these outcomes.
No doubt this is true, and people like to glance over that, but from my personal experience I've found the inverse to be true. My experience as a self-loathing millennial, ugh, is that my peers with the uber-rich parents kind of became (or are becoming) deadbeats... not finishing their free (mom and dad paid) graduate level education or becoming perpetual students and never really landing a job they're happy with. These folks may cruise through life on family money, but eventually that will run out... people like that don't do their future generations any favors.

On the flip side, people I've known who grew up very modestly, didn't go to Ivy league schools, etc., ended up running their own businesses or applying themselves through education and getting decent jobs.

Personally I grew up very middle-income, paid my own tuition in college, and am living comfortably now (not rich, but well enough).. sometimes not being given everything can be a good motivator to earn things on your own

Ive never understood the American obsession with 'house poverty'.
People shouldn't be house poor - that's not wise.. people who do that look too romantically upon the idea of home ownership. However, at least in my neck of the woods you can easily spend $2K or more per month on relatively mediocre apartment housing. When you write that $2,200 rent check you are doing all of the following:

-Not building equity
-Not actually buying something that is yours
-Not building your credit worthiness (you're not hurting it either)
-Not having a guarantee on your future housing
-Not having a guarantee on your monthly rental amount
-Etc.

On the flip side, if you were instead putting that $2,200 towards a mortgage then you are actually physically buying something that is yours with each mortgage payment and you can use your house as a bank with lines equity credit, you can borrow against yourself, and on a long enough time scale homes are a pretty guaranteed net positive investment. So even in a market downturn if you can keep your job and keep making those payments you can come out the other side

But home ownership is not right for everyone, and people need to think long and hard before purchasing for a myriad of reasons
 
Yeah, but this is not about the credit crisis. It's about the landlord taking advantage of a captive audience.
 
taking advantage of a captive audience
Unfortunately that's a by product of capitalism though, no industry in the US is immune to that

I love the people who spend $2,400 on a Macbook Pro simply to scroll their Facebook and Twitter feeds. A big part of marketing and advertising is how aggressively can you trick the buyer into spending their money on your product
 
Back
Top